Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[tsb247]

You should only be frightened if you openly state that you seek to destroy anonymous or are working for a company that is corrupt.

And who gets to decide if an company is corrupt? You speak of all of this freedom, and rellaying against corruption, but at the same time you descibe an organization (or rather a group of people that randomly come together from time to time) that attacks indescriminately to silence those who oppose them or their ideals.

Tell me, who is corrupt? Who is free? It is in fact a two way street, is it not?

It seems to me that those who vocally oppose Anonymous are excercising the same freedoms that the group claims to represent - freedom of thought, information, and the ability to exercise it.

If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and freedom of informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.

 

[tsb247]

The attack any entity they don't agree with, and they make demands. If their demands aren't met, they continue their attacks. How is that honorable in any way?

True but its nice to have a bit on anarchy in the wind, I mean if the government or a big corporation / business does the same to a single person what happens? They pretty much get bulldozed over.

The System is broken, education is a joke, and politics are filled with corruption and hypocrisy.

Maybe, but the use of such tactics will only invite harsher response. Sometimes information itself is enough to solve these problems. Digital hostage taking/ransoms/threats/DDoS attacks are only going to steel the opposition's resolve.

I also find hypocracy in Anonymous's actions. I see them as attacking what they perceive to be a threat without considering the consequences. It's like dropping of 500lb bomb on an enemy target that is nestled amidst civilian structures. You may hit your target, and you may even cripple/destroy it, but at what cost?

 

[AnonOperations]

If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.

I wrote it because it is the truth. This is shown by the evidence. HBGary Federal attacked anonymous in a brutal way by trying to sell largely false information to the FBI. His motives of this was to show off his capability to gain a big money making contract. He was then attacked, also in a brutal way. It doesn't take many for an op like this and it doesn't distract from the other big operations.

 

[tsb247]

If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.

I wrote it because it is the truth. This is shown by the evidence. HBGary Federal attacked anonymous in a brutal way by trying to sell largely false information to the FBI. His motives of this was to show off his capability to gain a big money making contract. He was then attacked, also in a brutal way. It doesn't take many for an op like this and it doesn't distract from the other big operations.

You responded to a statement, but not to any of my questions.

Is it really that simple? An eye for an eye? He tried to, "Hurt," Anonymous, so they are going to try and, "Hurt," him back? To what end? So much for the high road, right?

How can we trust Anonymous's word over HBGary's? Both parties resorted to equally immoral acts. What makes Anonymous more credible? Is it their creedo, or is it the idea of what they represent? Both can be discredited. The rational explanation is that neither party can be trusted. For all I know, Barr had the right names. We may never know.

We could easily shift the focus away from the U.S. and go on to the unscrupulous dealings of any government in the world. How are any of them different? Governments and industries in China, the U.K., Australia, etc. all behave in a similar manner. Basic political science and international relations can explain that.

Look at you... Calling them, "Ops," and whatnot. How is Anonymous not a terrorist group again?

 

[Jodan]

go anon!

 

[Fuselage]

If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.

I wrote it because it is the truth. This is shown by the evidence. HBGary Federal attacked anonymous in a brutal way by trying to sell largely false information to the FBI. His motives of this was to show off his capability to gain a big money making contract. He was then attacked, also in a brutal way. It doesn't take many for an op like this and it doesn't distract from the other big operations.

You responded to a statement, but not to any of my questions.

Is it really that simple? An eye for an eye? He tried to, "Hurt," Anonymous, so they are going to try and, "Hurt," him back? To what end? So much for the high road, right?

How can we trust Anonymous's word over HBGary's? Both parties resorted to equally immoral acts. What makes Anonymous more credible? Is it their creedo, or is it the idea of what they represent? Both can be discredited. The rational explanation is that neither party can be trusted. For all I know, Barr had the right names. We may never know.

We could easily shift the focus away from the U.S. and go on to the unscrupulous dealings of any government in the world. How are any of them different? Governments and industries in China, the U.K., Australia, etc. all behave in a similar manner. Basic political science and international relations can explain that.

Look at you... Calling them, "Ops," and whatnot. How is Anonymous not a terrorist group again?

Because Anonymous is not a group, People don't seem to understand that.
Its a Hivemind, There are no leaders, the closest things they have to leaders are the skilled hackers while the drone/srcipt kiddys DDOs everything the "Leaders" will not resort to such tactics, If 100 Anoymous members get caught, They get replaced with the ease of a click, You cannot even count the number of Anons, It is impossible.

 

[Ken Sapp]

Eh, I still don't support Anonymous or Assange. I'm sorry but even if they are currently "hacking for good" you can't discount the illegal and/or malicious acts they perform. Have some of its members done good things? Yes, exposing pervs and tracking down animal abusers are good things. but maliciously attacking sites "For the Lulz" is at least borderline illegal and definitely unethical and for every story someone puts up of Anon exposing a pedophile there are usually at least ten of them DDoSing a site or interfering with other peoples online experiences maliciously.

Best to just ignore them.

 

[EOD Tech]

Can't believe you people defending WikiLeaks. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Good honest Iraqis that I knew when I was deployed in 05-06 had bounties put on their head for "collaborating with the invaders" when their names were exposed by WikiLeaks last year. Thank God none that I know personally have been murdered--yet--but it's happened to others.

Again: if you support WikiLeaks you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Flamingpenguin]

Ever been on /pro/? So much of anon programs. It's ridiculous. There are so many intelligent anons, that stuff like this is bound to happen. (Sure, you get the whole bell curve all the way down to dumb little 14 year olds, but you get the braniacs too.)
I am all in favor of this.
I am all in favor of anon.

 

[ace_of_something]

I hate anonymous but it's guerrilla warfare. The best thing to do is just leave it alone.

Because Anonymous is not a group, People don't seem to understand that.
Its a Hivemind, There are no leaders, the closest things they have to leaders are the skilled hackers while the drone/srcipt kiddys DDOs everything the "Leaders" will not resort to such tactics, If 100 Anoymous members get caught, They get replaced with the ease of a click, You cannot even count the number of Anons, It is impossible.

You can be a lone weirdo and still be considered a terrorist.
Just because they don't have any central organization or leaders doesn't make it any less a 'group' either.

At least from a legal standpoint pointing out that they disembodied is splitting hairs.

Though as stated it's pretty much impossible to destroy a bunch of random people with the same goal to annoy people they personally don't like via computers.

Examples of people they don't like in the past; Governments, Banks' customers, aging rock stars, 11 year old girls that won't get naked for them, and [a href=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7283797.html]memorial pages of dead children[/a]

You know people who just deserve it.

 

[tzimize]

Anonymous will not nor will ever be honorable in any sense. They are assholes first and foremost, any good things that come from their activities are mere coincidence.

A slightly lesser form of this argument goes for Julian Assuange and Wikileaks,they are attentionwhores looking for 15 minutes and anything that comes from it that's positive is mere coincidence.

You are absolutely right. Listening to that socially inept kid on the BBC, coldsomething, made me cringe, it really is about the 15 minutes of fame. And yeh they'll take down anything or do anything to anyone regardless if its a good or bad thing to do.

Also can we please stop with all these 'Anonymous are heroes' articles, its getting boring and sad.

What IS sad is that you lack the ability to see Anonymous for anything other than misbehaving kids. They are that too, but they are so much more.

I've said in another thread that I would not be surprised if Anonymous will go down in history as our times cultural phenomenon (sort of like hippies, only cool). They are miscreants but also political protestors, and at least they are actually DOING something, which is more than what can be said about the vast majority of people who are getting butt-f***ed by "the man".

 

[tsb247]

If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.

I wrote it because it is the truth. This is shown by the evidence. HBGary Federal attacked anonymous in a brutal way by trying to sell largely false information to the FBI. His motives of this was to show off his capability to gain a big money making contract. He was then attacked, also in a brutal way. It doesn't take many for an op like this and it doesn't distract from the other big operations.

You responded to a statement, but not to any of my questions.

Is it really that simple? An eye for an eye? He tried to, "Hurt," Anonymous, so they are going to try and, "Hurt," him back? To what end? So much for the high road, right?

How can we trust Anonymous's word over HBGary's? Both parties resorted to equally immoral acts. What makes Anonymous more credible? Is it their creedo, or is it the idea of what they represent? Both can be discredited. The rational explanation is that neither party can be trusted. For all I know, Barr had the right names. We may never know.

We could easily shift the focus away from the U.S. and go on to the unscrupulous dealings of any government in the world. How are any of them different? Governments and industries in China, the U.K., Australia, etc. all behave in a similar manner. Basic political science and international relations can explain that.

Look at you... Calling them, "Ops," and whatnot. How is Anonymous not a terrorist group again?

Because Anonymous is not a group, People don't seem to understand that.
Its a Hivemind, There are no leaders, the closest things they have to leaders are the skilled hackers while the drone/srcipt kiddys DDOs everything the "Leaders" will not resort to such tactics, If 100 Anoymous members get caught, They get replaced with the ease of a click, You cannot even count the number of Anons, It is impossible.

I know that, but what else is there? Even if the number of people involved is small and disorganized, there are still people involved. Either way, their actions cannot be justified.

Take a look at their support of Wikileaks for example. Do you realize how fragile many of the peace agreements in the Middle East are? Assange knowingly strained them by releasing much of the information he did (not to mention U.S. and international relations with many other nations as well - referring to dossiers on world leaders that he released). Such reports could have (and possibly still) destabalize the region (again).

EDIT: Still many of my questions go unanswered.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

The government's corrupt, you say? No fucking shit, Julian! Didn't need classified documents to figure that out!

They may not be revelations but it is providing evidence of these things. Which is exactly what is needed before actions can be taken against those responsible.

If you try to dismiss this evidence, just remember the government has not denied any of it. Instead they are doing their best to prosecute Assange for releasing information of corruption and questionable activities.

Does it not concern you that some of the tax payers money has gone to help pimp little boys? Does it not concern you that your tax paying money is supporting these people?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/07/report-wikileaks-cab.html

Check my post on page 5 for other things wikileaks has revealed.

You misquoted me. Check the original post-I didn't say that. I was agreeing with you.

 

[tsb247]

Can't believe you people defending WikiLeaks. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Good honest Iraqis that I knew when I was deployed in 05-06 had bounties put on their head for "collaborating with the invaders" when their names were exposed by WikiLeaks last year. Thank God none that I know personally have been murdered--yet--but it's happened to others.

Again: if you support WikiLeaks you should be ashamed of yourself.

I wish there were more people like you on these forums. Those are the sorts of, "Consequences," I have been referring to in my previous posts. Good upstanding people can, and will, be harmed by the actions of such things as Anonymous and people like Julian Assange.

 

[Zer_]

Can't believe you people defending WikiLeaks. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Good honest Iraqis that I knew when I was deployed in 05-06 had bounties put on their head for "collaborating with the invaders" when their names were exposed by WikiLeaks last year. Thank God none that I know personally have been murdered--yet--but it's happened to others.

Again: if you support WikiLeaks you should be ashamed of yourself.

I wish there were more people like you on these forums. Those are the sorts of, "Consequences," I have been referring to in my previous posts. Good upstanding people can, and will, be harmed by the actions of such things as Anonymous and people like Julian Assange.

The US being in the region in the first place is the bigger problem... I choose the lesser of two evils. If one takes down the other, so much the better.

 

[-|-]

Can't believe you people defending WikiLeaks. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Good honest Iraqis that I knew when I was deployed in 05-06 had bounties put on their head for "collaborating with the invaders" when their names were exposed by WikiLeaks last year. Thank God none that I know personally have been murdered--yet--but it's happened to others.

Again: if you support WikiLeaks you should be ashamed of yourself.

Huh? This makes no sense. The US and UK armies have killed plenty of iraqis for no good reason and then they get all huffity about one or two that might theoretically be in danger. If wikileaks had been around in 2001/2 then perhaps there would have been no war in the first place given how much our governments lied about it. If anyone should be ashamed it's all those involved in fighting a war that has absolutely no point whatsoever.

 

[Ghengis John]

Frankly considering Wikileaks is only hurting our ability to operate diplomatically by releasing our cables I don't see them as good guys nor do I see anonymous with it's frequent attacks for it's own amusement as good guys.

If anyone should be ashamed it's all those involved in fighting a war that has absolutely no point whatsoever.

Yeah, let's blame the soldiers. Those Iraqis deserved to die for siding with us! As for our own boys, let's be sure to call them baby killer and deny them jobs like we did after 'Nam.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Because Anonymous is not a group, People don't seem to understand that.
Its a Hivemind, There are no leaders, the closest things they have to leaders are the skilled hackers while the drone/srcipt kiddys DDOs everything the "Leaders" will not resort to such tactics, If 100 Anoymous members get caught, They get replaced with the ease of a click, You cannot even count the number of Anons, It is impossible.

I'm growing a bit tired of hearing this sort of self-aggrandizing bumper sticker tossed off at every opportunity. It sounds like something a comic book villain would say as he demands a ransom from the world of $1 million dollars. It conjures up images of a distorted image coming through on a hacked television symbol of a bunch of guys in hooded masks broadcasting from some boiler room basement somewhere with a bedsheet stapled to the back wall with a black fist on it or some such nonsense.

Honestly, I think people keep repeating this stuff because it sounds dramatic. Oh! They are a HIVE MIND! THOUSANDS of members! You will never know us! We are AMONGST you! Beware it could be your neighbor! Booooooooo!
I already saw Fight Club. Thanks.

Anonymous can claim whatever they want because they hide themselves. Not like REAL revolutionaries or freedom fighters who are willing to put their OWN lives and families on the line for their CAUSE. Anonymous' members have no such conviction. Thus they do not earn such respect. Even Osama Bin Laden proudly posts up his face in those videos he makes in the caves. He WANTS people to know who they are.

You talk of all these lofty ideals as if Anonymous is trying to give FREEDOM to the world that has never known it through their questionable and oft times underhanded actions while simultaneously drawing parallels to actual real world protest movements like the American Civil rights movements of the 60's. Difference is, during the 60's REAL people went out and put themselves in HARMS WAY for their beliefs. They were martyr'd for the cause. Anonymous has no such selfless members. Worse, they have no defined leadership, which is a critical flaw in their strategy... it makes them DANGEROUS. How difficult would it be for a single member of anonymous or a small group, to escalate things to a tipping point? If anonymous can be comprised of just about anyone, who polices it to ensure some ass hat doesn't give nuclear secrets they absconded to North Korea or Iran or some despotic little country with a brutal dictator, say Somalia and then claim that ANONYMOUS has done this to "even the playing field?" Then what? If Anonymous gets the blame, how could they ever plead innocence, since there are no leaders and no one person can really speak for the whole?

How are anonymous members who commit corrupt or treacherous acts punished or brought to justice? How are its members vetted for honesty and integrity?

That is my biggest problem with Anonymous. There is no method set in place within the organization itself to police itself or allow others to safeguard it from being used by WORSE organizations. How long until some nutjob in Anonymous decides it would be really "awesome" to set off a car bomb or hack a hospital and take all the life support systems offline as a demonstration of their "power?"

Anonymous may be great at hacking and getting information that would otherwise be unobtainable, but the area they are shite in is PR. And by shite, I mean they HAVE NONE. Most common, average people who have even sorta kinda heard the name Anonymous seem more concerned about a group of hackers stealing banking information and accessing their private documents and personal files than with Anonymous' efforts to bestow "freedom" upon the world.

Besides, true "freedom" has always been nothing more than a pipe dream. You can not ever be truly "free" unless you live on an island by yourself that you own and nobody else is ever around. Otherwise, when your "freedom" begins to inhibit someone else's "freedom" then it becomes a problem. Doing whatever you want, getting whatever you want without consequence is not FREEDOM... it's ANARCHY.

Only idealistic children dream of a perfect world where everyone does whatever they hell they feel like without expecting any repercussion. And quite frankly, as for the "secrets" governments and corporations have, I could care less. Everyone and everything has secrets. They will ALWAYS have secrets. Some things SHOULD REMAIN secrets. You'll never be able to stop this.. EVER.
All Anonymous and Wikileaks are going to accomplish ultimately is a vast improvement in defensive technology to prevent hacking out information, stronger encryption techniques, and more severe methods of dealing with whistle-blowers and people who leak documents, not to mention those companies making things far, far more difficult for anyone to find out ANYTHING. At least right now we get SOME truth and information.
In the future, we won't have access to ANY of it.

My father was a company man.
And he taught me one lesson that has stayed with me forever:

"Trust NO ONE."
Epic words to live by.

 

[1337mokro]

Is it just me or are we just 9 years away from making the Deus Ex and System Shock games a reality.

Though of course we always knew the entire world government was corrupt. We just didn't know it was THIS corrupt. I can get wanting to enrich yourselves but seriously. If the information leaks. Just let it leak instead of not only being corrupt your also turning into a cyber terrorist.

Whether Wikileaks is harming diplomacy by publishing the actual opinions of countries or whether they are saving diplomacy by removing the masks countries could hide behind up until now is a debate only time will tell.

Long as Anonymous doesn't aim it's attack at individuals for no reason it's a pretty noble group that once again only time will decide are villains or heroes.

I wonder how my grandkids history books will look like.

"The Big Brother Bank of America than took down the diabolical hacker organization called Anonymous Satanist and prevented them from breaking the world economy by publishing slander."

"The brave souls of Anonymous protected only by their skill and subterfuge managed to bring to light corruption and greed within the core of Western Civilization."

 

[-|-]

Frankly considering Wikileaks is only hurting our ability to operate diplomatically by releasing our cables I don't see them as good guys nor do I see anonymous with it's frequent attacks for it's own amusement as good guys.

If anyone should be ashamed it's all those involved in fighting a war that has absolutely no point whatsoever.

Yeah, let's blame the soldiers. Those Iraqis deserved to die for siding with us! As for our own boys, let's be sure to call them baby killer and deny them jobs like we did after 'Nam.

Don't try to control the narrative by changing it to one of 'support our troops' as that is utterly irrelevant. Somebody above said wikileaks has put iraqis lives in danger and that those supporting their action should be ashamed of themselves. It's a stupid position because basic logic says the fact that the US is there in the first place has endangered and taken far more lives than wikileaks could ever possibly do. Besides, do you really honestly think that had the public known everything about what the US was up to before the iraqi invasion it would still have gone ahead?